Important legal notice
Skip language selection bar (shortcut key=2)
 European Commission > Commissioners > Margot Wallström Contact | Search on EUROPA  
homewho am Imy teamwhat do I dopress cornermy blogcontact me

my blog

latest entry

[ Wednesday May 24, 2006 - Category : General ]

Denmark, Latvia, Strasbourg

Copenhagen - Little Mermaid and the port

Having arrived at an age where there are more invitations to funerals than to weddings it was all the more enjoyable to attend the wedding ceremony in The Netherlands last Thursday for Tushara from Sri Lanka (she is the daughter of a Sri Lankan friend of mine) and Jos from The Netherlands. The bride looked gorgeous of course and the couple are now planning for the Sri Lankan wedding ceremony in Colombo – where they are supposed to invite everybody – so 300 guests are expected.

Together with President Barroso and Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, I visited Copenhagen last Friday. At 6 o‘clock in the morning I went for a jog along the water, in crisp air mixed with the smell of beer from pubs still open in Nyhavn. Then a breakfast meeting in the Parliament with the European Affairs committee, directly followed by a plenary session in the Folketinget. Several tough questions for all three of us on the sex slave trade, openness, agriculture and environment for example. Meeting with NGOs and a lecture at the University came next – and my impression is that the Danes are interested, critical but also well-informed about the EU. It was also clear that Denmark has used the ‘period of reflection‘ well to engage citizens in a thorough debate about Europe.

Two days later – two worlds in Latvia. On the one hand Riga, one of the fastest developing regions in the whole of the EU. Progress, development, growth – and a stunning city! On the other hand the countryside, with less progress and sometimes big social problems. I visited Skangale, Olof Palme‘s ancestral home that his family donated to the Salvation Army. After the Soviet occupation it was mostly in ruins, but now the Salvation Army has made it into a beautiful home for deprived children. Warm, friendly and caring with the heart. It filled me with joy and hope!

During the many meetings in Latvia I got a similar impression as in Denmark: people are interested in European questions, but sometimes critical towards how the policies are run. They have high expectations, and rightly so.

It ought to be the European Parliament who decides where they should meet! One can understand and respect the historical background for choosing Strasbourg as the location for the European Parliament – but today the practical problems – and costs! – connected with having two sites is overshadowing the symbolic value of it. Maybe, maybe with a new French president can a process start with constructive discussions also about “compensation“ in case the EP would choose to meet only in Brussels in the future…? There is a petition “” going on right now – I see the address has been posted also in the Debate Europe site – with the aim of collecting one million signatures. Judging from the most common public reaction to this issue that might be possible…

50 comments ] [ add a new comment ] [ trackback ]

Trackback URL:

The site Margot refers to is (although at the time of writing it seems to have a server problem)

Posted by The Moderator on May 24, 2006 at 06:16 PM CEST #

Dear Margot,

What comensation are we talking about, if the EU is not going to have its Parliament in France? If it is cheaper to have it in Brussels, let's keep it there. Why would any country need any kind of comensation for that?

I hope you are all well,

Posted by Plumber on May 24, 2006 at 06:38 PM CEST
Website: #


What is the URL for the petition? I reckon we could get a million names onto that in about a week...

Posted by John R. Walker on May 24, 2006 at 07:45 PM CEST #

Dear Margot,

Maybe the city of Strasbourg should compensate the EU for overcharging rent on the EU Parliament building for the past 25 years. ;-)

Here in the UK there is also a healthy debate about Europe (or rather, the European Union, which is not the same thing). Unfortunately, the political classes do not like what the British people are saying and are therefore pretending that it is not taking place.

Posted by Max Kaye on May 24, 2006 at 08:09 PM CEST #

Maybe you do sometimes listen after all Commissioner.


Posted by VA on May 25, 2006 at 01:04 AM CEST #

Hi Margot,

I think it would be a practical proposal to move the Europarl to Strassbourg. Concentration is bad.

Commission to Brussels, Parliament to Strassbourg and the Council should meet elsewhere.

I just received a letter from Commissioner Michel which really did surprise me. It will be crucial for the Commission to think about its governance role in the lights of communication. Maybe it is an intercultural conflict, because liberal governance models I take for granted are not common on the EU level -- so many different political cultures (French strict secularism, Constitutional Momarchies which do not respect the priciple of human equality). This applies esp. for the separation of mandate and person, of official roles and "political" action.

A few days ago a newspaper comment complained because our Federal President put a particulat political emphasis in a diplomatic speech of his. A Federal President should not interfere to much into the government.

Commissioner Michel thinks it was a good idea to insult citizens which take certain opinions and he does not want to be an institutional robot. While the latter sounds good it is a model of 'gentlemen rider' governance. I do not share the opinions he insults but I feel that the official position/role/office he takes gets damaged by such partisan communication. For me it is granted that politicians have to voice their opinions or defend their institutional opinion. But does this include negative campaigning in strawmen style?

E.g. a protestant in government should not insult catholic believers. Or a social democrat in government may not abuse his role to denounce conservative opinions using his public communication channels. He could do so as a private person or in his party role or in an election campaign. The core principle of my constitutional order is human dignity. When a government official supports a campaign like
, also with official money, he damages the institution, he shows disrespect to citizens, and he interferes in public opinion building. He does not respect human dignity as he supports propaganda which depicts his political opponents as mental ill.

Democratic policy is the result of a public opinion building process which is exercised in elections.

Why is public opinion building no role of government? Because in democratic nations governments are not elected to tell the electorate what to think or believe (propaganda), but to serve the electorate. This includes respect for those who disagree with their policy or institutions.

Think of the military. It is not the role of military leaders to tell the public why they want to got to war. And if a democratic majority wants, say, leave NATO or dissolve the military, they would be free to decide so. The opinion of military leaders would be irrelevent. And it would not be the role of NATO to start propaganda efforts against those which do not like the institution in order to "win support". This is something we feel about as a natural behaviour in political culture, we do not even think about it.

Same applies for the EU commission as another supranational organisation with no public mandate. the fact that Commissioners are chosen by member states and testify before EU-Parliament does not give them any public mandate that goes beyond the rules we apply for government officials. In fact as a derivative government they lack democratic legitimacy.

It is not important where EU-Parliament is located. It is not up to Commissioner Wallström to interfere here in the location debate because this is not your business, also given that the Commission shows so little respect for EU-Parliament. This disrespect is also demonstrated in other works of Wallström's GD, e.g. when she encourages parties to include European policy goals into their party program. Party policy is not a Commissioner's business but the decision of party delegates.

I trust EU-Parliament to represent my European intrests. If only the Commission would listen.

An additional quote from the EU Commissioner's code of conduct:

"In addition, the general interest requires that in their official and private lives Commissioners should behave in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity of their office."

I still wonder how
is in keeping with the dignity of Commissioner Michel's office.

Posted by André on May 25, 2006 at 01:40 AM CEST #

The Commissioner Having arrived at an age where there are more invitations to funerals than to weddings

Is it your age, Commissioner (I won't ask), or is it European demographics?

Fewer and fewer babies means fewer and fewer brides and grooms (and fewer and fewer backs to bear the load of state welfarism, fewer and fewer minds to innovate and fewer and fewer hands to pass on their culture.)

I'm glad to read that you approve of marriage as an institution, though.

Posted by Corsair on May 25, 2006 at 10:10 AM CEST #

Just a suggestion from across the pond. Perhaps the answer to the question on where to meet is to build a new city that is part of no European country. Make that city the EU capital. This has worked well in the US. Washington DC is part of no state and has no direct representation in the federal government. The city is run (all be it a bit poorly) by the congress itself. This keeps any one state from having the city of the entire countries power within it's jurisdiction. I think that it would have the same beneficial effect for the EU that it has here.


Posted by Ted on May 25, 2006 at 02:09 PM CEST #

Is there a new French President now?
May be he will also look at the CAP policy as well,and refund that money given after the riots in the banlieaus

Posted by Robin on May 25, 2006 at 02:51 PM CEST #

This week, Giscard 'demanded' a second 'chance' for the EU constitution in France.

Why should France and Netherlands hold a 2nd referendum ('keep voting until you give the right answer') while 21 countries haven't even held their first one.

I am particularly appalled that many countries treat their citizens with contempt and have ratified it in parliament.

Before we even contemplate a 2nd referendum, every single other EU country must have held it's first one. Including Austria, Finland, Denmark, Poland, Britain, Sweden and everywhere else the people would have joined us in voting 'no'.

Posted by Marcel de Vries on May 25, 2006 at 03:43 PM CEST #


You're a Yank and ought to know better.

These people are not your friends - they hate Americans, America and pretty much all it stands for.

Being nice to them only encourages the buggers.

Don't do it. That's my advice.

Best of British,
John Archer

Posted by John Archer on May 25, 2006 at 04:05 PM CEST #

Ted Perhaps the answer to the question on where to meet is to build a new city that is part of no European country.

Speaking as one of the poor schleps who would have to pay for such a thing, I can’t say I’m in favour; however, if it were built in Novaya Zemlya, the Pitcairn Islands or Queen Maud Land, I might be persuaded – but only if one-way tickets were issued.

Posted by Corsair on May 25, 2006 at 05:10 PM CEST #

Dear Marcel,

Nothing should surprise is. However, I hope Giscard gets his second chance, where I believe France WILL be even more angry, and the issues will be replaced again.

However, I fear Giscard will not get his second chance, as it has now been decided that Referenda does not fit in line with modern europe and they will do away with it.

The countries who ratify in parliament, and have not had a real vote have committed a criminal, culpabable act of treason and criminality against their own countries, values, history, democracy.

Why is Europe throwing away its democracy to replace it with a worthless parliament, filled with slime, corruption, slease and the gravy train, a council of ministers where they decide what happens with zero democratic basis, and a bunch of unelected commissioners who run round looking for interesting things to do, like take over, meddle in, and wreck everything they can lay their hands on.

European people need to wake up and fight this garbage. Its appalling.

Posted by VA on May 26, 2006 at 10:36 AM CEST #

Unlike some of my EUrosceptic friends, I think that the location of the EU Parliament is of great symbolic importance. How about relocating it to the slopes of Mount Etna?

Posted by Max Kaye on May 26, 2006 at 10:39 AM CEST #

Hi John,

Some of my posts got missing as well here at Margot's blog, for the reason that is unclear to me...


Posted by Plumber on May 26, 2006 at 12:14 PM CEST
Website: #

Hi Marcel,

I agree with you completely. Why force the second referendum, if the first one is not finished.

This is annoying to see that people are forced to vote, as long as they vote 'properly'.

I do support the EU, and I would even like to have the Constitution, but I agree that the way it is forced on people just undermines the EU as whole, and makes many of its citizen think that maybe that EU is not meant to serve the interests of the citizens, but their rulers?

Anyways, take care. Best,

Posted by Plumber on May 26, 2006 at 12:18 PM CEST
Website: #

A major impediment to the EU is that MS cower under US bullying. It is hard to see Germany functioning as a sovereign state within the EU, whilst symbols of US Arrogance like Rammstein Military Base remain. In tandem NMS like Poland have joined in acts of US aggression like Iraq which has been reduced to a failed state. US meddling in EU affairs also extends to economic policy. Some NMS adopted a flat tax under the guidiance of US economists, whilst Germany is expected to maintain high taxes to fund social spending and net contributions.

Ireland and Britain are two <font color='red'>Trojans of US Hegemony</font> on the European Continent. Our Irish partners are prospering using tax dumping against fellow member states and are being propped up by the strong <font color='green'>Irish-American Lobby</font> which is second in influence on US Foreign Policy to AIPAC Lobby that is promoted by 2.5% of the American Population. So this is the gratitude we get for funding Ireland's infrastructure modernisation. What next are we all expected to learn the Gaelic language under US guidance?

We all know that Britain is a military vassal of Washington. It fights wars sanctioned by the US. The UK would never have won the Falklands War without US-built Sidewinder Missiles that provided the British Fleet with air cover from deadly Argentine Etender aircraft armed with anti-ship Exocet Missiles. The current UK Goverment has failed to convince the US administration to ratify Kyoto-Climate Change, so the relationship is one way. Meanwhile the US is developing Quantum Computers that will crack all known encryption algorithms that secure digital communications there enable the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK's GCHQ to continue spying on all of us.

Looking at the postings of a UK racist like John Archer and those of Greg Lance-Watkins and their equally obnoxious Irish counterpart Charles Copeland, my conclusion; <font color='red'>Celtic Arrogance</font>. Perhaps that why the US is so aggressive, having its origin in the British Isles. The US and peoples of the British Isles are trying to dictate terms to the other nearly 400 million people in the EU.

Posted by Helmut_P on May 26, 2006 at 02:00 PM CEST #

Helmut P,

Yet another one who wants Britain out of the EU.Good.
England is as Celtic as France is Gaulle.

I also agree that Germany pays too much into the EU,but for that you can thank Chancellor Merkel.

Posted by Robin on May 26, 2006 at 02:46 PM CEST #

What about the EU capital moving to Israel?, let's take more of the Palestinien land nobody will complain.

Posted by Hans Blink on May 26, 2006 at 03:15 PM CEST #

Thanks, Helmut. Friday afternoons do drag and your post brought a smile to my face. A celto-jewish conspiracy to rule the world: who would have thought it? I’m a Scot, so naturally I’m keen to know how I can join it. Is there a website?

The US and peoples of the British Isles are trying to dictate terms to the other nearly 400 million people in the EU

Why don’t they all just leave the EU, then?

Posted by Corsair on May 26, 2006 at 03:53 PM CEST #

Helmut_P, old bean, have a lie down in a dark room for a while. The rest might help you to see that nothing is achieved by your bitter rant against countries and individuals. Your opinions are oveshadowed by a seemingly sour disposition which I am sure is unfair on you: at bottom, I am sure that you are amiable old Teuton. Take your lead from the good Commissioner - woolly sentiment is the order of the day. Prost!

Posted by J, N. Coles on May 26, 2006 at 06:01 PM CEST #

Big deal 300 guests...In Cyprus 300 accounts merely for the family...

Posted by George Kyriacou on May 26, 2006 at 08:43 PM CEST
Website: #


In your infantile anti-American rant you seem to forget that America sacrificed thousands of her sons to free half of Germany from the evil of Nazism and, for the next 45 years, sheltered western Europe under her nuclear umbrela, whilst working to free the other half of Germany from under the Soviet/Stasi jackboot.

But then, of course, maybe this is precisely what upsets you...

Posted by Max Kaye on May 27, 2006 at 02:03 PM CEST #


I support the move of the European Parliament to Brussels and have signed the initiative. I understand that France would like to have compensation for this move, but I don't know if this is the best solution (although it may be politically necessary). It would be better if Belgium and Luxembourg were to pay some compensation for the benefits they reap by having the main EU institutions in their countries instead.

That would be fair not just to France, but to all.

Posted by Nanne on May 28, 2006 at 11:56 AM CEST
Website: #

Dear Margot,
I signed, too. I think that all Eu institutions have to be established in the same city as the administration of a big city. Europeans need a clear idea about where they are located, a simple person knows about Brussels, Luxembourg ecc...and it's not easy to have a clear idea if you do not study about them.
It's not enough clear and maybe this is the fist way of being closed to the citizens. I read about an American who asked himself one time " if I have to speak with someone from European Union, where I have to call?"'s a joke but it's a reality, too much bureaucracy, many places of institutions and money which are spent for the travels from one place to another, for the interpreters, for the hotels ecc, all these things do not like to simple people.


Posted by Marcela Maidaniuc on May 29, 2006 at 11:27 AM CEST #

Helmut P,

Talk of yet even more money going to the French(for compensation)

Is that another Anglo/Irish/American plot?

Posted by Robin on May 29, 2006 at 04:29 PM CEST #

"There is a petition “” going on right now"


Maybe will get the one million supporters which should not be difficult given the circumstances. It will still remain a counterproductive initiative with respect to the problem of ligitimacy of the EU. From my point of view it is more guided by demagogy than by concerns about democracy.

I am not French, but still would like the EP rather in Strasbourg than in Brussels. The EU is already too much centralized. Moving the EP entirely to Strasbourg would be a much better solution for all those who suffer under the democratic defficit of the EU than continuing concentration in Brussels. The initiative does not allow this alternative, hence it will not get my support.

Posted by aeiou on May 29, 2006 at 07:06 PM CEST #

Have Helmut_P and Inferior ever been seen in the same room together? I think we ought to be told...

Posted by Corsair on May 29, 2006 at 07:21 PM CEST #

Margot - this is a great time to start talking about closing down the EUropean 'Parliament' building in Strasbourg.

According to a recent poll in Libération, 98% of French NON voters have no regrets...

But 10% of the OUI voters do have regrets!!!

So we can guess that about 58% would vote NON tomorrow if the 'let's keep voting until we get the answer we want' desperados are silly enough to hold another referendum so the French can 'get it right'. Nice!

Do us all a favour Margot and keep talking-up the potential loss of Strasbourg as a seat of prestige, even if the toy parliament cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a seat of power... It's useless but the French might miss it...

With a bit of luck, maybe we can make it 68+% NON votes next time round? I know you won't understand what 68% NON means but - we will...

Posted by John R. Walker on May 30, 2006 at 03:09 AM CEST #

I must say, I really like the new car Mr Barruso has bought for himself! Its fantastic to see the EU commissioners abiding by the lambasting they give others.

Every EU citizen should now go ahead and go out an buy a nice expensive 4X4 SUV fuel guzzling car! Now thats what I call leadership!

I trust Margo will post an online tirade against those greedy, fuel munching Americans real soon now. ;)

Thankfully, we'll see less of the rubbish poured out of this blog, now its been established that the truth is uncovered. The EU commission does not believe in the bull**** they pour out of their PR machine! They wander off and buy themselves nice 4X4 SUVs while daring to lambat Americans for doing so.

Ahhh, I can tell, I'm going to enjoy Tuesday. Hilarious :) I can see many a red face in Brussels.


Posted by VA on May 30, 2006 at 10:27 AM CEST #

It's good to see parliamentarians trying to stop their needless monthly migration. For the Strasbourg parliament building, perhaps it could be filled by some other European organisation - I can't recall who suggested putting a European Institute of Technology there.

If France really wanted Strasbourg to be a European centre, they could have made it easier to reach in the first place - the TGV will finally arrive next year and connections in general are not great. Of course if earlier European leaders had been more organised all institutions might have ended up somewhere like Saarland or Liege and not accidentally mostly in Brussels.

Cheer up Helmut_P, you're making the British Euro-miserabilists look decidedly jolly!

Posted by KarlF on May 30, 2006 at 11:44 AM CEST #

More hilarious antics from the EU.

Posted by VA on May 30, 2006 at 12:52 PM CEST #

Karl F,

The French are rioting in the banlieus again.After all that money that was promised by the EU.It obviously didnt work,so can it be refunded?
Who authorised the money to be sent there in the first place?
Where is the money coming from?
What would it have been spent on if it was not given to France?
Would this money be better spent on other problems?

Who is more deserving of any money given,the rioters in Europe or the disaster victims in Asia?

Posted by Robin on May 30, 2006 at 09:33 PM CEST #


You are not being fair in your moderation I think.

You have allowed Helmut_P to malign the USA, Britain and Ireland, yet you withhold my reply.

I do not think this is cricket.

Trish Fremdlieb PhD

Posted by Trish Fremdlieb on May 31, 2006 at 01:40 AM CEST #

I can also think of better things to spend EU money
on than some sort of globalisation fund (which is not meant just for France by the way). Instead of a fund, I'd go for reducing/scrapping the CAP and putting the money into R&D instead - pretty much everyone would be better off with that.

As for more "deserving", it's more a question of balance. If eventually all of Europe is rioting, there's not going to be much left to help Asia.

Posted by KarlF on May 31, 2006 at 10:32 AM CEST #

Hans Blink,

A couple of days ago there was an earthquake in Java. I'm surprised that you've not yet blamed it on Israel.

Posted by Max Kaye on May 31, 2006 at 10:40 AM CEST #

Moderator, I can't find this site any more. You remember, it is about scenarios (Future Study Unit). May I ask you for help?

Posted by Citizen on May 31, 2006 at 11:05 AM CEST #

Citizen, you'll find this archived site here following the change to .eu:

John Archer/Trish/Nick and any other aliases: I haven't been moderating the site for a week or so. My stand-in colleagues obviously didn't like the look of your posts and having seen them I'm not going to overrule them. I'm away again for another week or so, so you can try your luck again. Nothing personal I can assure you.
Helmut P's post was also authorised by someone else and having just read it now I must say I just laughed at the Celtic arrogance accusation. (England, Celtic?! shurely shome etc.) I often think one 'side' is as bad as the other in some of these discussions.

Posted by The Moderator on May 31, 2006 at 11:46 AM CEST #


"I must say I just laughed at the Celtic arrogance accusation. (England, Celtic?! shurely shome etc.)" (Moderator)
Yes, that was a gem. But it seems there probably might be more than a little of the Celt in us too, going by some findings I've heard about DNA. All rather vague though.

"I haven't been moderating the site for a week or so." (Moderator)
That could explain it. Perhaps you could have a word in your colleagues' ears.

"Nick"? Has someone been trying to impersonate me? Outrageous behaviour. Though I hope it wasn't me and I've forgotten. :)

"Nothing personal I can assure you." (Moderator)
I never thought it was, Mod. :)

Posted by John Archer on May 31, 2006 at 01:19 PM CEST #

Does anyone recall the Commissioner's recent finger-wagging pontifications on the evil of the demon drink?

See this for the upshot of it all: 'Passive Drinking'...

Posted by Corsair on May 31, 2006 at 01:43 PM CEST #

Like most people I consider the Parliament's monthly migration a nonsense. I am glad to see Mrs Wallstrom thinks so too. But is the commitment to Strasbourg not written into the Treaty of Amsterdam? And is the Commission not supposed to be defending the treaties, even when they (or bits of them) are indefensible? What does Mr Jacques Barrot think I wonder?

Fennie Somerville

Posted by Fennie Somerville on May 31, 2006 at 01:51 PM CEST #

You're right, it's in the Treaty of Amsterdam:
but then again, there's nothing wrong with Commissioners proposing improvements to treaties.

Posted by KarlF on May 31, 2006 at 05:15 PM CEST #

Cheers John. Actually there were Celts all over much of Continental Europe so Helmut's contention makes no sense anyway.
I'll be back in a week, I'm going somewhere where there is unlikely to be any mention whatsoever of the European Union - the annual Wave Gotik Treffen in Leipzig (look it up). Looking forward to the break... see y'all.

Posted by The Moderator on May 31, 2006 at 06:40 PM CEST #


You're a Yank and ought to know better.

These people are not your friends - they hate Americans, America and pretty much all it stands for.

Being nice to them only encourages the buggers.

Don't do it. That's my advice.

Best of British,
John Archer

Posted by John Archer on May 25, 2006 at 04:05 PM CEST #


Free speech has limits. Don't you see that this guy is a shame for his own couintry?

Kind regards,

Miguel Miranda

Posted by Miguel Miranda on May 31, 2006 at 08:07 PM CEST #

Karl F,

"If eventually all of EUrope is rioting"

Well if the EU project was more democratic,and respected the NO votes,it would nt come to that.
We should start with a referendum in England.

Posted by Robin on May 31, 2006 at 09:42 PM CEST #

Miguel Miranda: Free speech has limits

Miguel, you speak with the authentic voice of authoritarian intolerance. Over here on the Good Guy side, we say: ‘No Burqa on Free Speech’!

Don't you see that this guy is a shame for his own couintry?

Stuff and nonsense! He’s a perfectly conventional patriot offering sound advice to a friend. I fail to see how John’s post is even controversial, let alone so heretical that it must be suppressed.

Posted by Corsair on June 01, 2006 at 11:18 AM CEST #

Miquel, You say: "Free speech has limits".

So, you seem suggest censoring opinions that you disagree with? Shame on you!

Free speech is indivisable. Either it is free - or it isn't. The last thing we need is a bunch of self-appointed censors, or worse - self-censorship - so as not to 'offend' those who do like one own's opinions. What next? Be nice to Islamofascists and other maniacs so that I don't offend them?

Posted by Max Kaye on June 01, 2006 at 12:19 PM CEST #


"Wave Gotik Treffen": I did look it up. Good luck. I'm afraid my musical tastes are stuck in earlier times - "How much is that doggy in the window?", that kind of thing. Well, perhaps not that exactly - it's not really one of Chuck Berry's is it?

Anyway, I take it you are not planning to play the fife and drums there, but maybe you could give it a try as an experiment to see what reception you get. Try "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Yellow Rose of Texas". Let me know how you get on.

"I'm going somewhere where there is unlikely to be any mention whatsoever of the European Union" (Moderator)
I tend to indulge in a lot of wishful thinking. Reading that line of yours made my heart skip a beat. If you get my drift? ;) :)

"And it's no, nay, never,
No nay never no more,
Will I drudge for the EU
No never no more"


Miguel Miranda,

"Free speech has limits." (Miguel Miranda)
That's an oxymoron. Par for the course for you lot though.

Corsair, Thanks.

P.S. Mod, I do have another 'colleague', Nick MacAvelly. Perhaps it was one of his posts you rejected. I don't recall it though. Anyway, the man's completely amoral.

Posted by John Archer on June 01, 2006 at 06:22 PM CEST #

L'installation du Parlement européen à Strasbourg n'a rien à voir avec un symbole historique. C'est le Conseil de l'Europe qui a choisi cette ville comme symbole de la réconciliation franco-allemande, à la fin des années quarante.
Au début de la CECA, les institutions européennes avaient un siège unique: Luxembourg. Mais il n'y avait pas d'hémicycle. On en chercha un dans un périmètre de 250 km. On prit celui du Conseil de l'Europe en location, car cette institution était déjà tombée en léthargie. L'Assemblée de la CECA y a tenu ses réunions en raison de cette opportunité immobilière. La symbolique de la réconciliation franco-allemande n'était pas la raison première. Même si la coïncidence est heureuse, ne réécrivons pas l'histoire.

Posted by André Riche on June 02, 2006 at 10:58 AM CEST #

It was great that you had time to wisit Skangale in Latvia. Riga really is not all Latvia. Sometimes we are saying: Riga is not Latvia, Latvia is not Riga...

Posted by Aija on June 06, 2006 at 12:18 AM CEST #

Post a Comment:


Your Comment:

HTML Syntax: Allowed

Fields are optional. Please note that if you give your email address it will be published.

(Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.)

« May 2006 »



'use strict';